I imagine I'll start to show up more often when either I, or the general population of the board, has changed. There are so many interesting and insightful people here and so much I want to "experience" here. End everyone I deeply respect here seem to be in a personal crusade against one or more of the others I respect. Chaos. But that can be good to, I think.
It is not me but another Bible reader who pointed out to me the symbolism of 'The Chaff' has a different definition than you are proposing. The Chaff are those persons who do not follow in the Way of righteousness. This is the original usage (as far as I can tell). The chaff is considered waste product, existing mainly to support the grain until it is ripe. Usage of the word 'Chaff' by Jesus or by Paul cannot over-ride this most basic and powerful emphasis throughout the rest of scripture. Those two must be seen as understanding of this usage or they exclude themselves. Jesus uses it this way in Matthew 3:10-12
Paul uses a second fulfillment for most prophecy, and this gives his words forking meanings, but his use of Chaff should be informed with its original meaning. While he *could* call the physical body chaff and the resurrected body the seed he considers all Christians to be part of a larger body, the body of Christ which for him is part of Israel's body. (Rom 12:5,1Cor 6:17) In his usage of chaff he *could* be talking about personal resurrection, but it is more likely that he is talking about the raising of Israel through gentiles or the grafting of gentiles onto Israel. This 'Resurrection' copies the one in Ezekiel 37:11, the resurrection of Israel's body (not actually an individuals) spoken of as if it were one man.
Resurrection of Israel also is likely what Jesus means when he says "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days." Such a statement implies that he has incorporated all that Israel represents within himself, so that he is able to reproduce it. Paul says as much about himself in 1 Corinthians 11:1 He is a seed from the old tree, not a leaf, not chaff. Matthew 3:10-12 puts it all together, showing how the rejectors of Jesus words are considered chaff and are also infertile; while the rest are the grain and fertile.
That is the apparent point of Christ's metaphor that in the end God will separate "the wheat from the chaff" (Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:17) and burn the chaff away while keeping the wheat for himself, hence alluding to the firey apocalypse (see my discussions: p. 136, with n. 160, p. 211; and pp. 143, 150), where the "outer body" (the chaff) will be burned away and the "inner body" (the wheat), a body which only the saved have, will be freed and raised to new life. To make the same point, Origen used the analogy of casting off the placenta (see my discussion on pp. 143-44), just as Paul used the analogies of moving from one house to another and removing one coat and donning another (2 Cor. 5:1-8, with my discussion on pp. 137-40, esp. with nn. 180 and 181, pp. 212-13).
A: That is not true, as I already explain on pp. 146-47. The "seed" that you see going into the ground is actually the shell--the actual material that becomes the plant is hidden inside that shell. The shell you see (and sow) is thus the "outer man" while the hidden kernel inside it is the invisible "inner man" that rises to new life. The shell itself dies and is cast off. It does not become the new plant, so there was no continuity between them. As accomplished agriculturalists, the ancients knew all about this. And as a gardener myself, I have physically seen it, in some cases picking off the discarded shell of a seed that was still stuck to its kernel's sprout as it rose above the soil (usually that shell remains buried and decomposes).
Q: When Paul compares our present bodies with a seed that is planted (1 Corinthians 15:36-37), implying our new bodies are the plant that blooms, doesn't this entail that they are the same thing, since a seed merely transforms into a plant? After all, the seed and the plant aren't separate things, but the same thing!